Sounding The Bugle On Late-Term Abortion

Sounding The Bugle On Late Term Abortion
By Joseph E Rathjen
September 01, 2013
(Published By: WomanScope NewsMagazine)

Now that the state of Texas has passed a law banning late-term abortions, it remains questionable about how many more states will follow suit and propose similar legislation. Thirteen states currently prohibit abortions at 20 weeks or later after conception, a procedure viewed by many pro-life groups as a wanton act of murder.

The argument about whether late-term abortion should be permitted by law is not a new one; pro-life and pro-choice groups have battled each other over the question as to when life begins for years. Abortion, on one hand, has diversified into a national rally cry in favor of a woman’s personal right to choose whether she wishes to carry an embryo to term; while, on the other, it has become an indictment for the definition of life itself, in its earliest stages.

Nevertheless, let us not lose focus here. Putting religion and morality aside, the legal debate continues. According to a new Gallup poll, the number of Americans against late-term abortion holds steadfast. The latest Gallup poll, which was released on May 2, 2013, indicates that 58 percent of all Americans oppose late-term abortions, and any type of abortion for that matter. However, 39 percent approve of abortions in extenuating circumstances like rape, incest or medical emergencies where the life of the mother is in imminent danger. These numbers have not changed much in the last 10 years, and there is no reason to believe that they will do so in the near future.

So have revelations of late-term abortions and the despicable medical procedures used to perform them had a direct impact on people’s perception of abortion?

It would seem they have. Clearly, pro-choice views in support of late-term abortions have attracted negative reactions from many Americans, especially after the horrors of clinic abortionist Kermit Gosnell was exposed. The majority of the people in this country who were polled do not want to support or justify a procedure that rips apart a baby (who is capable of feeling pain in the womb) limb by limb, resulting in a barbaric death.

Rep. Chris Smith, who is the head of the pro-life caucus in the House of Representatives, echoed this view when he said: “The brutality of severing the spines of defenseless babies — euphemistically called ‘snipping’ by Gosnell — has finally peeled away the benign facade of the billion dollar abortion industry.”

Obviously, the U.S. House of Representatives felt the same way. On June 16, 2013, the House voted to ban late-term abortion by a vote of 228-196 and in doing so, they paved the way for a Senate vote sometime in the near future. Harry Reid, who is the Senate Majority Leader, said he remains “open” to a vote on the measure. However, pro-choice supporters worry that a vote is pending in the Senate as an amendment to other legislation, which inevitably might let the ban be approved.

If the Senate votes to abolish late-term abortion and then presents the bill to President Obama for his signature to declare it as law, he will most likely veto it; he has already openly promised to do so. I cannot see, however, the wisdom behind any president actively choosing to go down in history as the one who was responsible for allowing the slaughter of 20-week-old babies (and older) to continue. That would be one hell of a legacy to leave behind.

Surely, the continuing fight for a woman’s right to choose late-term abortion is not going to change Mother Nature’s mind when she decides it is time to give a baby in the womb the ability to feel pain. Therefore, the persistent fight by the pro-choice side to permit late-term abortion remains futile in nature.

Eventually, this country will have to make up its mind about what is more important — extending a woman’s right to choose a late-term abortion, or saving the lives of 5-month-old babies and older who are capable of feeling excruciating pain just like the rest of us.

4 thoughts on “Sounding The Bugle On Late-Term Abortion”

Sadly, all too few people are aware of why late term abortions are necessary – it’s because major fetal abnormalities like anencephaly typically aren’t detected until 20 weeks. If people understood what these kinds of defects are, and were informed that the fetus is either going to die in utero or shortly after birth, there wouldn’t be the opposition to it. Who wants a woman forced to carry a dying or dead baby? Surely not people who claim to be compassionate.

I’m with you on that one, but this article was about LTA’s in general. There’s many sound medical reasons why a late-term abortion should be allowed, and I don’t think many people would argue with you on that, at least I wouldn’t. But I think it is better to have the law in place to avoid its misuse. If we didn’t, too many people would find too many reasons to abort a baby just out of convenience, like deciding to get rid of the baby when they decided too late it wasn’t a good idea in the first place.

Thanks for stopping by and commenting. Civil debate is always welcome here!

Late term abortions are less than 1.5% of all abortions and they’re almost entirely for medical conditions. A lot of the agitating about late term abortions misses the reality that they’re grave operations for grave circumstances, not forms of contraception. A lot of the argument makes it sound like there are women deciding on a whim to terminate their pregnancy in the third trimester, which distorts the debate – these are awful choices, usually made by people who desperately wanted the child. So I always wonder why people focus on them, except to score political points.